Proposal of a "stable" coin mechanism with no oracle or peg

[UmaPessoa]

I wrote a paper with two different ideas for a coin with a stable price. By that I mean a price that does not change so abruptly as of now. None of those ideas involve a central authority, oracle or asset peg, they do not require fundamental changes on how block-chains work.
It's a short paper, 6 pages. Initially it was available only as pdf but security concerned users asked for jpegs too.

Note: We are mainly discussing the second approach here, which honestly I think is better. You can jump to section 5.

https://github.com/UmaPessoa69/coin-smooth-price

Note: I posted it some days ago on the economics section but it didn't get much attention and a user suggested bringing it here.

[1714167608]

1714167608

[ABCbits]

So basically you attempt to make "stable" coin by :
1. 2 coins (on a blockchain) with exactly same feature
2. Control inflation/block rewards based on hash-rate

As for 1st idea, it's only stable when coin A traded with coin B and vice versa. If all holder, investor and users no longer interested with both coins, both coin price will crash.

As for 2nd idea, it's really interesting idea. However it would fail if :
1. Miner looking for short-term profit and miner could use his ASIC/GPU to mine other coins.
2. Investor or miner who hold lots of coin decide to dump this coin

Additionally, it would make the network less secure since hashrate constantly changed and there might be times where hashrate is very low which allow 51% attack at low cost & i doubt people interested with cryptocurrency without fixed inflation rate/growth supply cap.

[UmaPessoa]

As for 1st idea, it's only stable when coin A traded with coin B and vice versa. If all holder, investor and users no longer interested with both coins, both coin price will crash.

Yes, this is correct. It would only smooth price variations.

1. Miner looking for short-term profit and miner could use his ASIC/GPU to mine other coins.

Yes. The system would have activation thresholds. From section 5.1, third paragraph:

The activation threshold is important because there will inevitably be small
variations on hash-rate. Those will be due miners entering and leaving business,
power outrages around the world and other externalities.

2. Investor or miner who hold lots of coin decide to dump this coin

I don't see how. This would increase the coin supply, drop the price and consequently the hash-rate. The network then decreases coin supply, the price and hash-rate go up.

Additionally, it would make the network less secure since hashrate constantly changed and there might be times where hashrate is very low which allow 51% attack at low cost & i doubt people interested with cryptocurrency without fixed inflation rate/growth supply cap.

I don't see how the constant change of hash-rate could make the network less secure.
The scenario of a very low hash-rate wouldn't be very different from what currently happens:
1. The price drops;
2. The hash-rate also drops.

As I understand what you are proposing is:
1. The price drops;
2. The hash-rate also drops;
3. The coin reward per block decreases and/or the destroyed fee increase;
4. More miners leave the network since the reward per block is smaller.
5. Hash-rate panic/crash and 51% attack.

This would not happen, since 4 and 5 would actually be:
4a. More miners get into the network or none leave since the certainty of the price going up offsets the block reward cut;
OR
4b. More miners get into the network or none leave since only the destroyed fee increase do not affect them and there is certainty of the price going up;
5. No great difference from what actually happens.

I think people would be very interested in a crypto-currency like this one. Note that within this system the hash-rate variation would be made smoother and not zero. So inflation and deflation would be kept within a certain threshold instead of being fixed.

[mixoftix]

thank you for the post. refer to the PDF version in page 5:

5.2 Protocol specifities:

A protocol that supports this solution will need a few characteristics:
1. Infnite coin supply that does not decrease with time;
2. Transaction fees are destroyed;
3. The hash-rate history is recorded on the block-chain.

while you have infinite coin supply, how you can remove the transaction fees? this means after years, finally all coins will get mined and after that miners will find no incentives to mine new blocks.. even in continue the paragraph - that tries to describe the consequences - doesn't provide a solution. you you please clarify this paradox?

[UmaPessoa]

while you have infinite coin supply, how you can remove the transaction fees? this means after years, finally all coins will get mined and after that miners will find no incentives to mine new blocks.. even in continue the paragraph - that tries to describe the consequences - doesn't provide a solution. you you please clarify this paradox?

All coins will not finally get mined. Blocks will always have coin rewards and they can increase or decrease over time. You can control inflation by destroying the coins in the transaction fee.

[mixoftix]

while you have infinite coin supply, how you can remove the transaction fees? this means after years, finally all coins will get mined and after that miners will find no incentives to mine new blocks.. even in continue the paragraph - that tries to describe the consequences - doesn't provide a solution. you you please clarify this paradox?

All coins will not finally get mined. Blocks will always have coin rewards and they can increase or decrease over time. You can control inflation by destroying the coins in the transaction fee.

sorry, sorry. I have lost the mean of word infinite. you are right.

now, what you suggest in your paper is same as what I do. my coin supply is "infinite" too. I have a transfer fee that divides into:
1- transaction fee
2- network fee (this wipes out in the system)

destroying all/part of transfer fee prevents the unnecessary transactions in the system and I really like this. I also have the 3rd fee:
3- oxidation fee (this wipes out in the system too)

and this one is for the unspent coins with more than 1 year old (more older, more oxidation fee). you know, bitcoin and other similar coins have finite coin supply to create something like GOLD in virtual world - but with adding this wiping/destroying policy now we are at the age of modeling COPPER (or other metals) in virtual world.

Gold wasn't the only metal that brought us civilization, others were important too.

[UmaPessoa]

Just because block reward is reduced, coin price isn't raised automatically. There are many external factor such as better coin or people got bored with this coin.

For example, BTC price wasn't increased a lot after it's halving.

If you take into consideration interest in external coins your are analyzing shifts in the demand curve and changes within the supply curve at the same time. It would be better to do one at a time.
The network doesn't change coin supply solely by reducing block reward, there are also the destroyed transaction fees. The later allows for actually reducing the amount of circulating coins and not just slowing down it's increase.

destroying all/part of transfer fee prevents the unnecessary transactions in the system and I really like this. I also have the 3rd fee:
3- oxidation fee (this wipes out in the system too)

This could be a real detriment to the coin as a medium for storing value.

[mixoftix]

destroying all/part of transfer fee prevents the unnecessary transactions in the system and I really like this. I also have the 3rd fee:
3- oxidation fee (this wipes out in the system too)

This could be a real detriment to the coin as a medium for storing value.

well, when you decide to model all kinds of metals by crypto-coins, you may find the need for different policies. for example, who uses steel as a medium for storing value? defiantly no one. but at the same time, let focus on modeling gold - as all crypto-coins do and imagine you buy a piece of golden jewelry today with 30 Grams (1.06 Ounces). for the security reason, you may also buy a home safe box and regularly spend time to check the content of the box and be worried during each travel out of city (oxidation fee). with golds around 1 kilograms (35.274 Ounces) and above, now you start thinking about renting a safe deposit box and pay for it every year (oxidation fee).

each entity that involves in the process of block making has to somehow benefit form protecting the whole network. why people should work all the time to persevere something precious for me, for free?

P.S.:

there is another report here about loss of 36% of all bitcoins in circulation. this report may be wrong, but people could either simply forget their private keys or send their coins to an invalid address, and the whole network will suffer from the loss too. this is another problem that I try to address by oxidation fee:

https://news.bitcoin.com/btc-36-in-circulation-lost-23-held-by-speculators-us-tax-authority-monitoring/

[bitmover]

I took a look in your GitHub, and I was thinking about it.

As you said in the paper, the price is controlled by supply and demand. You proposed methods to control the supply, by mining  rewards and using two coins... But, what about the demand? You cannot control it.wjy should this coin be worth 0.000001 USD? Or one less or more zero?

If there is no demand for those coins, it doesn't matter any control over the supply.
Maybe I am missing something?

Stable coins should not be speculative, as far as I understand
Pegged coins, which are being successful such as usdt have a demand because they are like a security debt. When you buy tether you can sell it for USD in bitfinex/tether which promises to pay you back , a multimillionaire company...

I don't see , so far, how someone would buy a coin for X USD and expect to receive yhe same value back without amy multimillionaire company or government promising to pay you back (that's how security debt works anywhere in the world).

Buying a stable coin is like lending money.

[UmaPessoa]

I took a look in your GitHub, and I was thinking about it.

As you said in the paper, the price is controlled by supply and demand. You proposed methods to control the supply, by mining  rewards and using two coins... But, what about the demand? You cannot control it.wjy should this coin be worth 0.000001 USD? Or one less or more zero?

Mining two coins is not a way of controlling supply. The paper presents two different and unrelated ideas and only the later manipulates supply through block rewards and destroyed fees. You don't need to control supply and demand, by changing supply for a certain demand you can variate the price. I do not try to fix a certain exchange ratio for the coin only to smooth price variations, that's why stable in the title is quoted. Gold also does not have a fixed exchange ratio and it's price is fairly stable.

If there is no demand for those coins, it doesn't matter any control over the supply.
Maybe I am missing something?

This is correct, if no one wants the coin it's worth nothing. There is nothing that can be done about that. If the entire world decides that gold or the USD is worth nothing then their prices also go to zero.

Stable coins should not be speculative, as far as I understand
Pegged coins, which are being successful such as usdt have a demand because they are like a security debt. When you buy tether you can sell it for USD in bitfinex/tether which promises to pay you back , a multimillionaire company...

Nothing can have a completely stable price. The USD is not stable, it's price constantly changes in relation to other currencies and goods such as gold. If tether has a stable price it's only because people believe those companies can pay them back.

I don't see , so far, how someone would buy a coin for X USD and expect to receive yhe same value back without amy multimillionaire company or government promising to pay you back (that's how security debt works anywhere in the world).

Buying a stable coin is like lending money.

The idea is that the amount people receive back doesn't change too much. It's not a security debt. It's like buying gold or diamonds.

[monsterer2]

I took a look in your GitHub, and I was thinking about it.

As you said in the paper, the price is controlled by supply and demand. You proposed methods to control the supply, by mining  rewards and using two coins... But, what about the demand? You cannot control it.wjy should this coin be worth 0.000001 USD? Or one less or more zero?

Mining two coins is not a way of controlling supply. The paper presents two different and unrelated ideas and only the later manipulates supply through block rewards and destroyed fees. You don't need to control supply and demand, by changing supply for a certain demand you can variate the price. I do not try to fix a certain exchange ratio for the coin only to smooth price variations, that's why stable in the title is quoted. Gold also does not have a fixed exchange ratio and it's price is fairly stable.

bitmover is correct here. You are only proposing a control over one side of the supply/demand equation. Without a control over both you will not be able to stabiise the value of your coin. If demand drops to zero so will the price of your coins.

If you really want to control demand, you need to incentivise it. See interest rates. Look at bitmex.com.

[UmaPessoa]

bitmover is correct here. You are only proposing a control over one side of the supply/demand equation. Without a control over both you will not be able to stabiise the value of your coin. If demand drops to zero so will the price of your coins.

If you really want to control demand, you need to incentivise it. See interest rates. Look at bitmex.com.

You can control price through supply only. For each point in the demand curve that the market assumes you adjust the supply to smooth price variation.  But yes, if the demand drops to zero so does the price.

Note that:
1. it's impossible to have a 100% value stable currency, you can only smooth price variations;
2. "stable" is within quotes on the thread title because it's not really a stable price, it's a smooth price.

[monsterer2]

You can control price through supply only. For each point in the demand curve that the market assumes you adjust the supply to smooth price variation.  But yes, if the demand drops to zero so does the price.

Note that:
1. it's impossible to have a 100% value stable currency, you can only smooth price variations;
2. "stable" is within quotes on the thread title because it's not really a stable price, it's a smooth price.

'Adjust' is a two sided coin (pun unintended). You cannot reduce supply under this model, only increase it. Burning transaction fees is not enough control.

I don't think you will attain a 'smooth' price because the value of either coin on your chain will be determined not by hash rate estimate, but though supply/demand when it gets listed on real exchanges.

[UmaPessoa]

'Adjust' is a two sided coin (pun unintended). You cannot reduce supply under this model, only increase it. Burning transaction fees is not enough control.

Yes, you can. What makes you think reducing the reward per block and transaction fees are not enough? Blocks can have very large and variable sizes so transaction throughput will be much bigger.

As it is now blocks need to have a fixed size so that the supply of transactions is fixed. Miners and other users can then set the transaction fee price on the market. If the transaction fee is determined by different means you can make blocks as large as needed to accommodate all or almost all transactions.

I don't think you will attain a 'smooth' price because the value of either coin on your chain will be determined not by hash rate estimate, but though supply/demand when it gets listed on real exchanges.

There are two different approaches and only one uses convertible coins. You can implement the hash-rate solution in a block-chain with a single coin.

Yes, the price will be determined by supply and demand. If the price goes up more people will want to mine it and the hash-rate will go up. If the price goes down less people will want to mine it and the hash-rate will go down. Hash-rate is an indicator of price. That's what I meant by "estimate". Through the hash-rate you can estimate price variations without an oracle.

[bitmover]

'Adjust' is a two sided coin (pun unintended). You cannot reduce supply under this model, only increase it. Burning transaction fees is not enough control.

Yes, you can. What makes you think reducing the reward per block and transaction fees are not enough? Blocks can have very large and variable sizes so transaction throughput will be much bigger.

He is basically saying that you cannot burn circulating supply. Unless it is a full centralized coin, and you can delete coins from other people's wallet.

By what you are saying, if the price goes from 1.00 to .90, you would need to "delete" circulating supply to control the supply. Burning from fees may not be enough.

Yes, the price will be determined by supply and demand. If the price goes up more people will want to mine it and the hash-rate will go up. If the price goes down less people will want to mine it and the hash-rate will go down. Hash-rate is an indicator of price. That's what I meant by "estimate". Through the hash-rate you can estimate price variations without an oracle.

The problem is that your coin have no value. Why would people buy? Only to sell in a higher price. It has no real value.
It is not backed by a company with USD reserves, like tether. It is also not a share of a company, which pays dividends.

It is pure speculative, and it value is zero, as there is zero demand for it. Maybe at launch with market you may get some people to pay money for it (just trying to sell at a higher price).

If selling for a higher price ia not a possibility (if you can increase supply when price goes up), them only selling at a lower price is possible (if the demand goes down you can't do anything). So there is no reason at all to buy it, because you will , in best scenario, keep your investment with zero interest rates and a higher risk than tether/usdc etc.


I may be totally wrong, as I am not an economist, just using my basic economics/finance knowledge


Edit:
Why is Ether valuable? Because it is the fuel of the Ethereum network, which is the plataform where many Dapps (will possibly) run in the future, based on smartcontracts etc... Used by big companies like shell, bp, Microsoft....
Why is bitcoin valuable? Because it is a widespread internet money, accepted in most countries of the world.
Why is teher valuable? Because one tether is (supposed) to be backed by one USD dollar, and tether co will pay you for each tether you can get to them.

[UmaPessoa]

He is basically saying that you cannot burn circulating supply. Unless it is a full centralized coin, and you can delete coins from other people's wallet.

By what you are saying, if the price goes from 1.00 to .90, you would need to "delete" circulating supply to control the supply. Burning from fees may not be enough.

Why not? There might be a scenario with a price movement so broad that destroying transaction fees is not enough to completely stop it but for most cases it seems like a good solution. Again, there can't be a completely stable price, what we can do is try to smooth variations as much as possible.

You could have an oxidation fee as the other guy suggested but then you would also need to increase people's balance when increasing supply, otherwise there would be guaranteed deflation and a tendency for miners to concentrate money. This might be an interesting approach instead of manipulating fees and block rewards but how to implement this in the block-chain is not very clear. In fact, I think it might not be possible.

The problem is that your coin have no value. Why would people buy? Only to sell in a higher price. It has no real value.
It is not backed by a company with USD reserves, like tether. It is also not a share of a company, which pays dividends.

It is pure speculative, and it value is zero, as there is zero demand for it.

Just like bitcoin. Also just like bitcoin you could argue that the intrinsic value of the coin is how much it costs to mine it.

Maybe at launch with market you may get some people to pay money for it (just trying to sell at a higher price).

Yes, I was not expecting the coin to have a price before it existed. People can also buy it because they want to protect their capital and know that the price variations will be smoother.

If selling for a higher price ia not a possibility (if you can increase supply when price goes up), them only selling at a lower price is possible (if the demand goes down you can't do anything). So there is no reason at all to buy it, because you will , in best scenario, keep your investment with zero interest rates and a higher risk than tether/usdc etc.


I may be totally wrong, as I am not an economist, just using my basic economics/finance knowledge

The price can go up and it can go down. This mechanism only tries to smooth price variations, nothing has 100% stable value. Not even the USD or gold.

Why is Ether valuable? Because it is the fuel of the Ethereum network, which is the plataform where many Dapps (will possibly) run in the future, based on smartcontracts etc... Used by big companies like shell, bp, Microsoft....
Why is bitcoin valuable? Because it is a widespread internet money, accepted in most countries of the world.
Why is teher valuable? Because one tether is (supposedly ) to be backed by one USD dollar, and tether co will pay you for each tether you can get to them.

If all those coins have value why can't another one have too? Neither of them had value in the beginning and tether only had value because people believed the company would pay them back.

[d5000]

OP, your proposed solution 2 was already proposed some years ago. But I welcome a new discussion about these topics.  

I don't know if you already read it, but the old StableCoin thread of the Altcoin forum had lots of ideas - the first was to peg supply to transaction rate, but also the difficulty/hashrate peg was discussed (an early example is Freecoin). Also demurrage (the "oxidation fee" proposed by @mixoftix) was discussed (but here a participant explains why that would most likely not work). Demurrage (oxidation) is however possible without additional centralization, see Freicoin for an example.

I agree somewhat with monsterer2 that you also have to take into account the demand side, not only supply. That's why I think Basis (ex Basecoin) is very interesting. In this concept, you can exchange coins for "bonds" which get interest and so promise a profit, but these bonds may get burnt if there isn't enough demand for them. This is, in the end, a more sophisticated form of demurrage, where only "speculators" may lose money, but not the regular users. It's a pity that the project seems dormant (no more Twitter messages or blog posts since September), maybe it could be "revived" or the ideas implemented in another coin or even a Bitcoin-based token. What about you?

(Edit: It is even worse: Basis shut down completely, as they write on basis.io. But there could be space for a similar idea.)

I don't know if Basis would really work, maybe it can also be shorted/crashed intentionally to break the peg. And it needs an oracle. But IMO it's currently the most advanced concept.

For me, a stabilizing mechanism can only be one component of a truly working decentralized stablecoin. The other one is a working market of goods and services. That would add additional stability. An on-chain storage market (see Sia for an example) could be a crucial component, as storage space is one of the few massively used services which are somewhat "controllable" on a blockchain.

(I have collected some interesting concepts and existing "decentralized" stablecoins in this more recent thread.)

[mixoftix]

He is basically saying that you cannot burn circulating supply. Unless it is a full centralized coin, and you can delete coins from other people's wallet.

By what you are saying, if the price goes from 1.00 to .90, you would need to "delete" circulating supply to control the supply. Burning from fees may not be enough.

Why not? There might be a scenario with a price movement so broad that destroying transaction fees is not enough to completely stop it but for most cases it seems like a good solution. Again, there can't be a completely stable price, what we can do is try to smooth variations as much as possible.

You could have an oxidation fee as the other guy suggested but then you would also need to increase people's balance when increasing supply, otherwise there would be guaranteed deflation and a tendency for miners to concentrate money. This might be an interesting approach instead of manipulating fees and block rewards but how to implement this in the block-chain is not very clear. In fact, I think it might not be possible.

Lets elaborate the control of price and oxidation fee.. in fact oxidation fee in not a mechanism for control the prices, this is addressing one major flaw in cryptocurrency ecosystem that some economists and financial managers say that "business model in these coins are like ponzi /pyramid schemes". but I need to go even further more..

in cryptocurrencies, we have Alice that initiates a transaction to Bob by assistance of entities that we call them miners. in fact miners here act like a bank / payment provider company but we never proceed to model the role of central bank and the economy that it drives. however we simply use rewarding system instead of central bank's monetary policy, but there also need to be a taxing system to manage the incentives. this is important to build a healthy economy around cryptos ( https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-07/what-happens-to-the-economy-when-we-stop-spending-money/8297724 ):

"if everyone put money into a bank, the economy would grind to a halt."

"Deposits act as a nice bit of insulation for the economy. While they do facilitate lending, economists view savings as a 'leakage' of money out of the economy."

"Starting early, and saving a consistent amount over a long period, can produce big returns. On the other hand … if everyone tries to increase their saving all at once, the result will be bad for almost everyone."

and oxidation fee (in my white) exactly targets this flaw in business model of the cryptocurrencies, which means when your coins are all in circulation, you automatically have a good economy around it and this defines the worth of the coins. a taxing system may need a centralized organization that dosen't fit in crypto environment, but a decentralized fee mechanism that wipes out the coins in the protocol level, could simply establish. BTW, the oxidation fee defines by Fibonacci Sequence (1,1,2,3,5,8,13,..). for example after 5 years destroys 1+1+2+3+5 = 12% of the frozen savings in an address.

P.S.:

and refer to this thread ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178140.msg1857705#msg1857705 ) the idea of panic tax doesn't make sense, because you need to robust your business model to PREVENT any future panic from the beginning. when panic begin, you only could innovate and pray.. any intervention in users savings during panic just doubles the problem..

UPDATE:

for more information and background of oxidation fee please read about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand
https://courses.byui.edu/econ_150/econ_150_old_site/lesson_11.htm

[aliashraf]

@mixoftix,
I think your 'oxidation fee' idea is worth discussing a bit more, but I didn't find enough relevance to the topic. I strongly recommend you to open a separate  thread for this.

As of now, I suppose it would be easy for people to move their funds regularly for the sole purpose of avoiding your fibonacci based taxation model. In bitcoin fee system is not designed to be that prohibitive for dummy cash transfers.

[UmaPessoa]

@mixoftix
I don't like the idea of oxidation for reasons that I already explained. I also think it's getting kinda off-topic and might call for another thread.

OP, your proposed solution 2 was already proposed some years ago. But I welcome a new discussion about these topics.  

I don't know if you already read it, but the old StableCoin thread of the Altcoin forum had lots of ideas - the first was to peg supply to transaction rate, but also the difficulty/hashrate peg was discussed (an early example is Freecoin). Also demurrage (the "oxidation fee" proposed by @mixoftix) was discussed (but here a participant explains why that would most likely not work). Demurrage (oxidation) is however possible without additional centralization, see Freicoin for an example.

The FreeCoin solution differs from mine and it has problems that were rightly criticized at the time but it was on the right track. Those problems are:
1. The difficulty is fixed;
2. There are no reliable means for destroying coins, the author simply says that lost wallets are enough for this.

The transaction fee destruction was suggested but people on that thread missed what I saw. They thought it would reduce mining incentive but in fact it won't because there will always be coins to be mined. They thought transaction fees might not be enough for deflating the currency because the transactions per block are fixed, if it were not so miners and other users would not be able to negotiate a fee price. But if you adjust the fee based on hash-rate this is no longer a problem and you can have much larger transaction throughput.

The transaction rate approach makes no sense and I didn't see any real argument in favor of it.  Why would more transactions mean greater or lower price? It might just be Christmas. How would you know in which direction the price is moving?

I briefly explained in my last post why I don't think oxidation would work.

I agree somewhat with monsterer2 that you also have to take into account the demand side, not only supply.

There is no reliable way of controlling demand. It makes no sense to try to control demand. No one outside a dictatorship has ever controlled demand and even they can't force people to buy things at a price for very long. You can only control supply and wait for demand to adjust.

That's why I think Basis (ex Basecoin) is very interesting. In this concept, you can exchange coins for "bonds" which get interest and so promise a profit, but these bonds may get burnt if there isn't enough demand for them. This is, in the end, a more sophisticated form of demurrage, where only "speculators" may lose money, but not the regular users. It's a pity that the project seems dormant (no more Twitter messages or blog posts since September), maybe it could be "revived" or the ideas implemented in another coin or even a Bitcoin-based token. What about you?

(Edit: It is even worse: Basis shut down completely, as they write on basis.io. But there could be space for a similar idea.)

I don't know if Basis would really work, maybe it can also be shorted/crashed intentionally to break the peg. And it needs an oracle. But IMO it's currently the most advanced concept.

The main problems with Basecoin were that the base shares were distributed to early adopters so there was no fair way of obtaining them(mining), there was no way of destroying coins and it required an oracle to feed market price which still doesn't exist.

If basecoin solved the oracle problem, implemented a way of destroying coins (such as requiring an investment deposit in base shares that could be lost) and implemented a way of mining base shares then it would be great.

Offering interest to holders of a certain coin is not controlling demand, it's controlling supply and hoping demand follows.

For me, a stabilizing mechanism can only be one component of a truly working decentralized stablecoin. The other one is a working market of goods and services.

I agree with this.

(I have collected some interesting concepts and existing "decentralized" stablecoins in this more recent thread.)

Some of those are good but require an oracle, others are not very good and some are just dumb.
(I don't mean to offend you, it's just other people's ideas that are dumb. Your thread is useful. Sometimes this can't be made very clear through the internet.)